Athiests and Agnostics do not Reject God

[TheERK]

<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
M*W: There's no agnosticism when Humanity is God. It's a well known interconnected fact. Why else would God create us in its image? Christianity is what defiles Humanity as God. Christianity is the lie that crucifies humanity as God. Get rid of Christianity, and you get rid of agnosticism.

Once again, this is nonsense. It seems that you are defining humanity to be God. However, this is not the definition of God in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Neildo]

M*W: There's no agnosticism when Humanity is God. It's a well known interconnected fact. Why else would God create us in its image? Christianity is what defiles Humanity as God. Christianity is the lie that crucifies humanity as God. Get rid of Christianity, and you get rid of agnosticism.

Now you're getting further into one's beliefs. Does one take the Bible at face value? Is "the god" who created us in his image, the Almighty Creator of All?

Humanity can be god-like, but not the Almighty Creator, so we're more like demi-gods -- or at least have the ability to reach that stage in this physical plane. Those are the two things that I seperate in my beliefs. I do not believe that our creator is THE Almighty God.

Call me crazy or what have you, but I believe we were created by some other intellegent species with demi-god powers. As we become more technologically advanced, we're able to do some pretty amazing things. Sooner or later, if not already, we'll be able to clone beings and to me, that's pretty god-like if you ask me. Who/whatever we clone, we technically ARE their god, but not THE Almighty Creator of All and that's the difference. So the same would really apply to whoever created us. And who knows, the one that created us could be who is called Satan and heh, that would make us the Children of Satan. No wonder this world is in such a mess. La de da..

Oh yeah, and I don't think getting rid of Christianity would get rid of Agnosticism. We would need to dumb-down ourselves and get rid of our ability to learn and become as technologically advanced as we are. Science is the thing that puts religion in danger and makes Humanity look like God. Because I highly doubt that Science and Technology will be able to one day make us travel to the spiritual or higher planes to be closer to the Almighty without dying, we will still have Agnostics since we just flat out won't be able to prove or disprove the existance of a being that high.

So Science will continue to make us believe there isn't a God as we become more god-like. But still, how did we come into existance? And if another demi-god intellegence created us, who and what created them? It's a never-ending cycle and that's why it's silly to refute there not being an Unknown Almighty Creator of All. One can go ahead and not be religious and whatnot, but regardless of how much of a demi-god we may one day become, there's still those answers we will not know and that's why I believe Agnosticism will always remain. Hell, I'm calling it now -- Neilstradamus here -- it will be THE only religious thought in the future.

- N

 

[Halcyon]

M*W; You're peddling christianity as a lie and a defiler, yet you take a christian originated belief "Why else would god create us in its image" to support your point of view.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

First of all, go ahead and put down dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com. They are wrong. Their definitions do not accuractly convey the nearly-universal, in philosophical circles and discussions, definition of atheism, as a simple lack of belief in God. You are correct that Theists believe, but you're showing your true colors (i.e., utter ignorance with respect to philosophy, no offnse) with your complete nonsense definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief: agnostics assert that we have no way of knowing whether God exists or not. This has been said hundreds of times, over and over, and people still don't get it: agnosticism isn't the "middle ground" between atheism and theism. It's not even in the same category: atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Most agnostics are also atheists, although they will deny this due to the negative feelings associated with the word "atheist".

First of all, whether or not the definitions are "accepted" as a definition somewhere else is irrelevant, as I said....don't put your foot in a shoe that's already occupied, you're not important enough. Changing the definitions around only makes the word more ambiguous, and almost euphemistic.

Secondly, agnosticism is a LACK of belief, because it's a statement about knowledge, not belief. You rephrased what I said, and somehow found refutation in it. Funny....

Lastly, the 'nonsense' I spout comes from this. The premise of agnosticism is something that actually applies to anything and everything via 'uncertainity'. One cannot be absolutely sure about anything at all, ever, for any reason. If you think you know certainties, then you're merely over-zealousy faithful, and ignorantly so.

I can say "I am theist, I lack a belief in a godless existence." just as easily as I can say "I am atheist, I lack a belief in a god". Either way I still have a BELIEF, with an irrevocable and innate factor of "possible incorrectness"-- whether or not I want to accept it. I will concede that agnosticism by defintion does not take "middle ground," however, for the word to have any relevance to anything, ever, it must go on to say "I can't know so I don't take a side." Otherwise, using the word simply means "I know I can't rationally know, but I faithfully believe it to be so." This is a redundancy in itself because the word "faith" implies the "possibility of incorrectness", so there is no need to say anything about being "agnostically faithful".

 

[§outh§tar]

I wonder how any times the atheist/agnostic debate, essentially one of semantics, has raised its hoary muzzle from the slimy murk of this subforum?



Just because you're selling, doesn't mean I'm buying.

Prices are at an all time low. Take it or leave it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Once again, this is nonsense. It seems that you are defining humanity to be God. However, this is not the definition of God in any way, shape, or form.

*************
M*W: Sez who?

 

[TheERK]

*************
M*W: Sez who?

Would you object if I defined God as a jar of old peanut butter sitting in my pantry, and then used that definition to prove that God exists?

If God is defined as humanity, who really cares? Nobody denies that humanity exists--you might as well quit talking about it. The fact is, no philosophy worth discussion defines God as humanity, because we already have a word for humanity: humanity. God is almost universally referred to as the creator of the Universe, an omniscient conscious being, an omnipotent conscious being, or a combination of those three. Humanity is neither.

 

[TheERK]

First of all, whether or not the definitions are "accepted" as a definition somewhere else is irrelevant, as I said....don't put your foot in a shoe that's already occupied, you're not important enough. Changing the definitions around only makes the word more ambiguous, and almost euphemistic.

It is highly relevant, because that is what almost all atheists, as well as learned philosophers, mean when they identify themselves as atheists or refer to atheists.

I'm not important enough for what? Don't be obnoxious.

Secondly, agnosticism is a LACK of belief, because it's a statement about knowledge, not belief. You rephrased what I said, and somehow found refutation in it. Funny....

A 'statement about knowledge' is not a 'lack of belief.' Now you're simply trying to weasel your way out of your own mistake. If you were correct, it would be valid to say that "agnosticism is a LACK of bungee-jumping, because agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not bungee-jumping." The fact is, you had no clue what agnosticism was about, and can't really admit to that.

Lastly, the 'nonsense' I spout comes from this. The premise of agnosticism is something that actually applies to anything and everything via 'uncertainity'. One cannot be absolutely sure about anything at all, ever, for any reason. If you think you know certainties, then you're merely over-zealousy faithful, and ignorantly so.

I agree, but this really has nothing to do with the discussion.

I can say "I am theist, I lack a belief in a godless existence." just as easily as I can say "I am atheist, I lack a belief in a god".

Theist and atheists are nouns, not adjectives, but other than that these definitions are correct. Funny how earlier you said this:

Atheists say "THERE IS NO 'GOD'"

Yet now you contradict it with a totally different desciption.
If you think there's no difference between saying "I lack belief in God" and "There is no God", then you're philosophically challenged.

Either way I still have a BELIEF, with an irrevocable and innate factor of "possible incorrectness"-- whether or not I want to accept it.

So what? If we are to believe your assertion that 'Everything is uncertain', this is obvious. An atheist might believe that there is no God, but that's not why he's an atheist. He's an atheist because he happens to not believe in the very thing says does not exist.

I will concede that agnosticism by defintion does not take "middle ground," however, for the word to have any relevance to anything, ever, it must go on to say "I can't know so I don't take a side."

No, the word does not go on to say anything. But first:

...yeah, right. People--including you--take a side about almost EVERYTHING else without knowing for sure. Examples include unicorns, especially the invisible pink species. You don't know for sure that they don't exist, but you'd be insane not to take a side. Similarly, most agnostics do take a side--many are agnostic atheists. Some are agnostic theists. A few sincerely aren't sure.

Otherwise, using the word simply means "I know I can't rationally know, but I faithfully believe it to be so." This is a redundancy in itself because the word "faith" implies the "possibility of incorrectness", so there is no need to say anything about being "agnostically faithful".

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All the word means is "I know/believe that it cannot be known." There is no extra clause about belief tacked on to it.

 

[Rappaccini]

Take it or leave it.

I left it when I was about twelve.